An interesting message, but I have to disagree with it. Taxes aren't just going to a government official's paycheck, they go to building our infrastructure, our education, our military, our law enforcement, our emergency management, our waste management, as well as practically all the other things we share as a nation. Good artwork though.
individuals working on a voluntary basis can provide all those things. if government went away, do you really think people would just sit there wondering where the roads went? what they should do with their thrash without the government to clean up after them? why do people assume that only government can do these things? and why do people assume its the best, most efficient way to deo them? If a company offered you a contract to recieve x services, which they reserve the right to change, add, or discontinue at anytime (wether you want it or not), and in return, you pay them whatever amount of money they decide they want at any time, would you sign that contract?
No, but only because I wouldn't get to pick the leader of that company. In an ideal democracy, the government represents the will of the people. We're far from being ideal, but maybe if the government didn't let itself be pushed around by big businesses we wouldn't have this problem.
Also, yes individuals working on a voluntary basis can provide those things, but there would be no way to really make sure it got done or that it was done correctly. Government workers are trained to handle these problems, your average civilian is not. Government regulation makes sure that trash goes where it's supposed to and our roads, sewers, and telephone systems don't fall into disrepair.
Also, if we went by this logic, we probably wouldn't have an efficient military because it would have no structure or chain of command. It would only be a loosely associated group of armed civilians with little or no training.
Are you and Anarchist? I know the government isn't perfect, but it does more good than harm.
but you would get to pick the company and you would get to fire them if they did not provide acceptable performance, which is more than we can do with government, because they own a monopoly on the services it provides. The problem really isnt that the government lets big business push them around. Remember, the government has a monopoly on force, and the ability to print money (when theyre not taking it). They arent going to let anyone push them around. They do, however, work hand in hand with business to provide them (business) with unfair market advantages in exchange for favors. For example, plum farmer lobbyists lobby the government to save the plum farmers. Then the government pays a plum farmer to not plant plums so the price of plums rises (good for the business, good for the government (who gets a fat ass check from the lobbyists), not good for us) Government is more easily swayed by money than votes. Individuals working privately can provide services, and if the work does not get done, you dont hire them. The incentive for profit will make sure these jobs get done, because they want their customers to come back. Im not a complete anarchist (though i would prefer the term "free marketeer"- im not about throwing bombs or not having rules) but i do believe that government is ineffiecient and morally wrong. Its the military thing national defense, and an enforcable justice system that keeps me from slipping away entirely
A good series of points, but we do have the ability to pick our government seeing as we live in a democracy and have freedom to protest as well as free elections. Hell, if we really didn't want to put up with it anymore and enough people supported the motion we could overthrow or reform the government completely. The only reason the current system is even in place is because of the consent of the governed (thank you enlightenment thinkers). If it weren't for our consent, however reluctant it may be, they wouldn't be in charge.
That's all I really have left to say. You're a good debater.
You're a little late in the argument. Three years is considered late, right? Is my post considered a retro fad now or something?
Anyway, the Electoral College of the United States is a way of tallying up how much each state (though, not each territory. Sorry, Puerto Rico) has a say when we elect our president. More populous states have a bigger say (sorry, North/South Dakota). Each state picks an elector who casts that state's vote on whatever presidential candidate they choose, though they usually get picked by promising to vote for a certain candidate and their name might not even appear on the ballet anyway (I know it doesn't in NY, so, sorry... whatever your name is) so if they don't, I can't imagine how they would get the job again four years later.
Overall, the Electoral College is kind of outdated. It was created in a time in which information couldn't move about very quickly and most people were not very well educated. It should probably be changed in order to keep up with the times, but I seriously doubt that it will be any time soon.
That's your Government lesson for the day. Now, please go practice debate necromancy somewhere else. You seem to have been doing it for the past few hours and it's starting to smell like troll in here (no offense, just sayin').
That's the beauty of the internet, unless you delete something it tends to stay an awful long time.
As for you completely missing my point - the electoral college does not give us a democracy - making your statement about having a democracy void. As the elections with Bush show us, the electoral college doesn't always "vote with the people". That constitutes a representative republic at best.